Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-08116
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Woods granted early discovery, allowing a subpoena to identify the subscriber behind an IP address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the subscriber’s identifying information; the unidentified subscriber associated with IP address 173.56.10.49 may challenge the subpoena; and Verizon Online, LLC must follow the court-ordered notice and response procedures.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 173.56.10.49. Before the parties held their required initial conference, Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Online, LLC, also called Verizon Fios, for the subscriber’s name and address.
The court found that Strike 3 showed good cause and that the request was reasonable, even under the stricter standard for a request made without notifying the other side in advance. The court authorized the subpoena but did not decide the merits of the lawsuit or any future challenge to the subpoena.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered procedures for notifying the subscriber, seeking to cancel or object to the subpoena, and producing the information if no objection is made. The information may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit and may not be disclosed further without court permission.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-08116
- Gregory Woods
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Online, LLC, referred to in the order as Verizon Fios. The subpoena seeks the name and address of the subscriber associated with IP address 173.56.10.49. Strike 3 sought this discovery before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), and it made the request without advance notice to the defendant.
Court’s analysis
Rule 26(d) generally prevents a party from seeking discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless the court authorizes early discovery. The court applied a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard, with particularly careful review because Strike 3 requested both expedited discovery and an order without advance notice.
The court noted that Strike 3 relied on a test used in cases involving motions to cancel subpoenas to preserve anonymity. The court said that issue was not before it and that the order was not a ruling on the merits of any future motion to cancel or challenge the subpoena. The court nevertheless found that Strike 3 satisfied the applicable standard for early discovery.
Order
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court ordered the following:
- Strike 3 may serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the name and address of the subscriber identified by IP address 173.56.10.49. Strike 3’s lawyer must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena. - Within seven days after receiving the subpoena, Verizon Fios must reasonably try to identify the subscriber and provide that person with copies of the subpoena and the order. If Verizon Fios cannot identify the subscriber with a reasonable degree of technical certainty, it must notify Strike 3’s lawyer. - Verizon Fios has 21 days after service of the subpoena to ask the court to cancel it or otherwise object. The identified subscriber has 14 days after receiving the subpoena from Verizon Fios to do the same. - If there is no motion to cancel or other objection, Verizon Fios must provide the requested information to Strike 3 within 21 days after notifying the subscriber. - Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce its rights stated in the complaint.
The court also ordered that the information may not be disclosed to anyone other than Strike 3 and its lawyers without further court permission. Strike 3 must serve a copy of the order on John Doe. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed at Docket No. 9.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.